Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 10:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 11:17:30 PM

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum

Yes were negatively influenced by those people.

those people, were once valued members of this community

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 10:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 11:17:30 PM

in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution this was the creator's vision as well.

Stop with the appeal to authority bullshit.

I can't help but point out we are going against the "classical road map"

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 10:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 11:17:30 PM

i'll pick full node centralization....

Then you're an idiot. Bitcoin would be worth nothing if it was centralized. You'd just be left with a inefficient network.

if 1000's of poeple run nodes, and 10,000's connect to pools to mine coins, that is hardly centralized...
I Imagine a future where individual states, universities, governments, corporations, banks are the ones running bitcoin nodes.
China and USA may not agree on a lot of thing, but they will be made to participate in nakamoto consensus!!
I simply do not care if there individual citizens can't run a full node without a 10,000$ investment.
Welcome to the future of money, its a BIG DEAL.

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 10:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 11:17:30 PM

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

Redundant at best.

does peter todd speak for them?
does blockstream? Cheesy

Quote from: DooMAD on March 24, 2016, 02:27:27 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 11:17:30 PM

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not aim for a balance where the costs for the settlement layer will increase slightly and the resources required to run a node increase slightly. Sacrificing one to bolster the other will always leave someone at a disadvantage, so if the costs have to go up, it should be spread as equally as possible between the two.

this is a sensible compromises i can go along with happily.

i guess segwit is such a compromises, but if thats are far as they are willing to go, and attempt to force me off chain in the name of "raspberry pie standards" i will fork off.